The American Spectator : Accentuate the Positive

Text Size

Accentuate the Positive

By Quin Hillyer on 7.9.09 @ 6:08AM

Criticism is important, but not enough.

Barack Obama is a disaster for the country because his economics are straight out of Mussolini’s playbook, his foreign policy is that of Ramsey Clark, his Justice Department is that of Ramsey Clark as well, his ethics are pure Chicago thuggishness, his hostility to Christianity in the public square akin to that of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and his ego like Napoleon’s.

Yeah, … and trying to make those complaints will get conservatives exactly nowhere. Nor will complaints that the establishment media have put their journalistic ethical manhood in collective hock, trading in their watchdog roles for not just a lap dog role where Obama is concerned, but more like lap dancers for the president while asking him exactly what he wants them to show him.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy are hypocrites and cheaters; and yes, Barney Frank’s economics are a threat to the republic; and yes, making “empathy” a criterion for choosing judges is about as relevant as making calculus skills a criterion for picking a hockey team.

To all those points, much of Middle America asks “so what?” Why should that make them pay attention to conservatives instead of paying attention to dead weirdo musicians and to their own credit card debts? Oh, much of Middle America will indeed give a passing thought to conservatives when those conservatives are flaking out in Argentina, Alaska, or airport assignations. But otherwise, conservatives just don’t seem relevant.

A huge part of the problem is that our elected leaders don’t seem to have a clue about how to mobilize conservative grassroots, much less the general public, behind positive themes or principled conservative ideals. The number of Republican congressmen not seriously afflicted with Inside-Baseball-itis can probably be counted on a broken abacus on which the beads don’t move. And the congressmen who actually understand that good principles are good politics, rather than an occasional tool for political ends, are as rare as the latest confirmed sighting of a hairy-nosed wombat.

But none of that excuses the rest of us for our failures to win political battles.

The conservative movement somehow lost its ability to elect enough of its own to office. The movement certainly lost its ability to stay connected with enough of the politicians it helped elect to office. And it — we — clearly failed to maintain the constructive hold that conservatives once enjoyed on state and national Republican Party apparatuses.

To understand how bad things are, one need only watch Republicans in the Senate fumble the chance to win a real public relations battle concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. On every level, polls give conservatives the edge on issues related to judges. Yet Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions has been allowed to wage a mostly lonely battle — a valiant and well-thought-out battle, but still a mostly lonely one — while most of his colleagues act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that Sotomayor will be confirmed.

You can’t win by acting as if you can’t win.

And that’s a shame, because if the nomination battled is waged well, there actually is, or could be, a serious chance, even if decidedly difficult, to defeat Sotomayor.

But I digress. The point here is that conservatives need to relearn politics.

Now that’s a tall order. Relearning politics from top to bottom involves all sorts of campaign technology, media savvy, personal skills, and myriad other challenges — far too many challenges to be discussed in one column.

But one fairly simple lesson from past conservative successes can be emphasized concisely. The lesson is this: To capture the public’s imagination, a movement needs to push a galvanizing, positive policy change.

In the late 1970s, a flailing Republican Party rallied around what became the Kemp-Roth tax-cut plan, along with calls for a strong defense. In 1994, conservatives rightly embraced the Contract with America. In 2002 especially, but also in 2004, conservatives effectively campaigned on the issue of judicial nominations. And in 2004, it is almost certain that various state initiatives to outlaw homosexual marriage helped carry President Bush to re-election while helping save or win seats for a number of Republicans, conservative or not, who benefitted from high social-conservative turnout.

In each case, conservatives clearly provided something to vote for. Yes, it also helps immensely to have something to vote against. Parties and candidates can win elections on the strength of being against something or someone bad. But principled movements can’t elect enough principled politicians to office, and keep them in office, merely on a negative message. They need to offer something positive — something either inspirational or at least deeply felt. Something for people to support.

Page: 1 2 >

topics:
Barack Obama, Conservatism, Grassroots

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ryan| 7.9.09 @ 8:25AM

I think one major issue is that there are a lot of good second bananas in the conservative movement, but we DON'T have a "spokesman" who has risen above everything. Limbaugh can only do so much, but there's no Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich polarizing elected official (particularly since Sanford went..umm...down...sorry) who can draw positive media attention. Maybe one will come out closer to the 2010 elections, but we're sorely in need of one right now to be the "face" of the movement.

Schwartzenegger would almost be the prime candidate if he was an actual conservative, but there's a bit too much waffling going on. Maybe if there is some success in California on the fiscal front - good results from budget cuts - we may see something.

That being said, I think Republicans are in a PRIME position for 2010 to capitalize on the dissilusionment with the Dems nationwide, combined with the reality that we really can't lose any more seats. Not that I expect to regain the house, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a few seats back in the Senate and keep it from being filibuster-proof.

Appleby| 7.9.09 @ 9:06AM

Mrs. Palin's emergence as One Of Us proves that there is a huge base waiting for someone like Jimmy Stewart to arise and we don't care if he or she is polished and married to a Rainmaker and lives in the Northeast and watches only movies with subtitles and believes abortion should be a sacrament and the best educated people in the world are movie stars...which is what most politicians seem to be like these days.

We want someone like ourselves who is not afraid to articulate our point of view and stand firmly behind it -- even when the finely honed Attack Machine that is still trying to destroy Mrs. Palin revvs up into Seventh Gear.

The country is ripe for civil war and if it doesn't get a Ronald Reagan soon, it will find that its leader is John Brown. (If you are under 40, look him up.)

Cris| 7.9.09 @ 9:17AM

I have a theoretical question for all 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. Let’s just say the current government nationalizes health care, it becomes a gigantic boondoggle worse than Medicare and fails miserably. Will you as President due the following:
A. Repeal the nationalized health care system and come up with a new plan?
B. Repeal the nationalized health care system and return to the old system?
C. Keep the nationalized health care in place and let it grow to astronomical proportions and even make further additions?

My bet is C. Just look at history. Eisenhower failed to curb the New Deal. Nixon fully funded all Great Society programs and made additions. W. Bush tacked on more to Medicare, etc. Conservatives need to cut the umbilical cord to the GOP, politically speaking start locally, use the courts and work their way up to state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution.

J.C.Eaton| 7.9.09 @ 10:05AM

While the article is well written, certainly well-intentioned, and perspicuous, it tiptoes around the surest way to fix the mess we find ourselves in with institutionalized liberals and liberalism. In fact, Brother Hillyer touches exactly on what is needed....but then steps away. Conservatives constantly look for the Reagan-esque man on horseback that will inspire,lead, and galvanize us in the successful fight to reclaim the power and the right to govern. We are dismayed to think that possible national nominees cancel themselves from contention by what they do , how they behave and their other assorted antics. But leaders will come in abundance IF Conservatives set their minds to taking back governance one seat at a time. Contrary to Mr. Hillyer's seeming position, I do believe that Joe Dokes and Sally Schlablovich(both convicted Conservatives!) ought to actively run for office. Make a move on that resident lib's Assembly or State senate seat. Give the public something to really chew on at the grass roots. State legislatures used to be part-time and offices were held by people with real jobs who got to fixing problems with celerity and went home. Now, state and local government is populated with full-time political-industrialists working like beavers to tax and spend their way into higher office.If we start going toe-to-toe with liberals, Conservative leaders will emerge in numbers. The public may have limited time and truck with esoteric policy papers, but they understand real quick that they're getting jobbed in their own back yard.Let's give 'em a choice. Best,

Richard Baker| 7.9.09 @ 10:10AM

Unfortunately, another plea to sorta let principle go and WIN those elections. The Conservative difference, and Reagan was elected by this, is that principle leads electoral victory. Otherwise, you mimic your opposition and where's the difference?

Big J| 7.9.09 @ 10:45AM

Please take a moment to read this article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=

Our problem is this: we are playing by the rules, and the Left is not.

"Yes, my friends, it’s once again time to quote Sean Connery’s famous speech from The Untouchables, written by David Mamet — the lecture the veteran Chicago cop gives a wet-behind-the-ears Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner, back when he was a movie star) while they sit in a church pew. 'You want to get Capone? Here’s how you get him: he pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!'"

While we desperately need another great communicator, we really need to quit playing by the rules. Why haven't we filed any ethics complaints against Barney Frank? How about Chris Dodd? Nancy Pelosi? And yes, the Grand Poobah himself, Barack Obama? I've got a sneaky suspicion that these charges would actually stick.

It's high time we started punching below the belt. There isn't a sport played that can be won when one side follows the "rules" and the other doesn't.

Pete| 7.9.09 @ 11:03AM

Have to agree with Big J. At the very least, start hiring, retaining, training up an army of lawyers for future "close" elections that the Democrats seem to steal with ease in the courts.

Old Texican| 7.9.09 @ 11:10AM

Big J ...Timing, Timing Timing!

The things we well informed see very clearly are just now getting in most folks' back yard.

Appleby
I firmly agree with you.

Quin| 7.9.09 @ 11:59AM

To J.C. Eaton,
You misunderstood what I was saying. I actually agree with everything you wrote there about the need to recruit candidates for every office one seat at a time. I wrote about one such effort in the June issue of the Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/15/after-the-tea-parties. I appreciate your compliments, and I compliment you back for your comments. We are in agreement entirely.

Oldefarte| 7.9.09 @ 12:06PM

Here, here----another great article, Quin! YOUR [and others similar] written thoughts are the ONLY light at the end of this political cesspool tunnel that we NORMAL people have; so please do not change or stop the informational direction that you and other writers provide to us daily. The REASON why there is little movement/reaction to Obama's/Democrats' extreme policies is because the MSM constantly brainwashes peoples' minds with their typical biasness and liberally-slanted [so-called] news [simce many of their stories are simply new-wire repeats from liberal sources]. WHAT is needed is not a clearer, more refined message to conservatives or moderates; but a dynamic, hell-fire-and-brimstone messenger to deliver that message. Boehner, Pewlenty, McConnell, McCain, etc ARE NOT going to accompolish the job [what Democratic candidates in modern times has called their liberal constituents to arms-----Kennedy, Clinton and now Obama]. We need Palin desperately [or someone like her] to stick a finger in the air to liberals' agendas. We need a Wallace, Long, etc, without the hate/race related speech to drive home our message. We also need, as Big J appropriately stated, to get real tough with the other side [and bring a gun to the knife fight politically]. Republicans have always been too nice, too polite; while the other side are constantly bringing their Chicago, mobster mentality and activities to the table [ie their demeaning attacks on Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean]. Stop the niceties and politeness and get DOWN AND DIRTY, folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

L. Ross| 7.9.09 @ 1:02PM

Big J:

Wonderful point, and one I have been asking myself again and again. Why do the democrats play consistent hardball when in charge, while Republicans play whiffleball. For pity's sakes, it's embarassing. If they are going try to steal every election that they lose by a small margin, why don't we fight back just as hard. Norm Coleman, bless him, fought all the way to the supreme court. But, if the game is being played with stuffed ballot boxes, why aren't we stuffing our own boxes? If the game is won with teams of lawyers, why don't we have teams of lawyers. If the slimmest of majorities in the Senate means majority, why the heck did Republicans try to offer up joint committee chairmanships when the Senate was split 50/50 and Cheney was the deciding vote. The Republicans have become the party of losers because they don't understand that in order to win, you have to fight.

JerseyJ| 7.9.09 @ 1:16PM

Ryan thinks ... "Schwartzenegger would almost be the prime candidate if he was an actual conservative, but there's a bit too much waffling going on"

A bit too much waffling? Understatement party of one, your table is now available. Arnie is no conservative by any definition of the word. If repub establishment wants him as a spokesman, we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

We don't need a "face", we need a clear message. So many pols on both side of the proverbial aisle are so afraid of alienating some group or other, they won't say what they stand for. They stand for whatever it is the group in front of them stands for ... until they appear in front of a different group.

For example ... some independent candidate for governor was on the radio this morning in Jersey. Get's a call from a union government worker asking what he would do to "cut" government spending. Would he still honor the union contracts? What guarantees do the "rank and file" members have that their benefits won't get cut? Naturally, the candidate tap danced around a lot speaking about "across the board" changes to all levels of government employees. Something about we "can't rule some things out." but never flat out said the economy sucks, everyone's got it tough and we're going to clean house like he should have. No, that would just annoy the CWA and he needs their votes.

Here's a government employee asking about guarantees when I pay his salary. C'mon. Let's talk real world. Most Americans have seen their benefits cut, hours slashed, co-pays raised, 401k's tanked and he wants a guarantee that he'll continue to have no co-pay insurance, copious amounts of double-time and 52 days off a year? Get real. Where's our guarantees?

No we don't need a celebrity voice. We need a candidate that comes out and says exactly what they stand for and what they'll do. Not that they'll "save or create" jobs; not that things are "above their pay grade". Lonegan in the Jersey gubernatorial primary was that guy. He clearly said he'd eliminate this department, cut that program, remove progressive taxation, on and on. I knew exactly where he stood on a variety of issues and I agreed with most of them. At the core, he believe that bigger government was not the solution to big government. Alas, the repub establishment sold him out for a candidate that promised "across the board" tax cuts for everyone, a reduction in business taxes, reinstitution of property tax rebates but no idea how he'd fund any of it. They thought he was "electable". A vapid excuse for a Governor he would have made ... no way he'll unseat the wealthy, tax and spend, socialist narcissist we have currently. At the end of the day, he would be no different than the status quo anyway.

I would vote for someone who told me without rhetoric or ambiguity what they stood for if it agreed with what I stood for. Doesn't matter who the "face" was whatsoever. If a conservative candidate would just make it clear what they stood for they'd be amazed how many Americans agreed with them.

We've had enough charisma ... Keep it clear and simple ... that's all we need.

Tim| 7.9.09 @ 1:20PM

What he said.

fundamentalist| 7.9.09 @ 1:41PM

Obama has a lot in common with Reagan. Reagan believed deeply in conservative principles, got excited about them and helped people imagine the great city on a hill that would we could create if we followed those principles. Obama has the same passion for his principles.

Passion inspires people and motivates them to join your army. What are Republicans passionate about? Nothing. They want the same thing as Democrats, but a little less. Democrats are passionate socialists who inspire followers; Republicans are tepid socialist-lite, warm beer.

Richard Baker| 7.9.09 @ 2:33PM

fundamentalist:
The difference is that Reagan was a constructive builder and Obama is a destroyer and not a builder of anything except oppressive government.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.9.09 @ 2:54PM

Good article Mr. Hillyer. But as can be seen by the responses the problem in the conservative movement is self-inflicted by those who knowingly or ignorantly do the Democrat's work for them in the name of “principle” or “losing to win.” Add unrealistic expectations/demands on issue after issue that Ronald Reagan would fail to satisfy and you have an equation for political failure and years in the wilderness.

Cris does have a point that Republicans have failed to roll back bureaucracies and the liberal welfare state. When you consider Reagan created a new one while expanding others it is disheartening how ineffective we’ve been at dismantling liberal bulwarks in government, but when W tried to reform Social Security "conservatives" were overwhelmingly silent and/or half-hearted in their support. Again their lack of actions indirectly benefited Democrats.

Ross the only Republican who has fought back against Democrats on the level you suggest was George W. Bush. Sadly, elements of the conservative movement following the lead of Democrats made sure his unprecedented success record in electoral victories (2000, 2002 and 2004) was torpedoed just as the nation was potentially on the verge of political realignment to the right. When punishing Republicans becomes a mantra for self-described conservatives Democrats/liberals always win.

Frankly, despite their protestations I believe many self-described conservatives secretly like Democrats running the show, because then they can complain to their hearts content without the responsibility of governing. If and when we regain Congress and the White House conservatives have got to either choose to support governing or we'll back in the same feces we're in now.

Angel| 7.9.09 @ 6:59PM

Tomlinson, you consistently defend President Bush's leadership. I liked W for many reasons but his leadership on domestic issues (besides SS Reform and Judges) was not one of them. Could you elaborate on your views? Thanks.

bobmontgomery| 7.9.09 @ 9:59PM

At the point when the MSM columnists and heads say the Republicans had better not do this or they're never going to win, when the Republicans intensify their efforts at DOING JUST THAT, they might start winning. The same Republicans irked at Obama for apologizing for America, go around apologizing for their racism, their homophobia, their corporate greed and their desire to destroy the environment. They admit they are not fit to lead and wonder why they do not lead. No wonder the Dems get all the fat cat money. The cats know who's going to win. The GDP was plus until last summer. Why did it go south? Cause the cats knew what was going to happen. Why did Colin Powell support Barack Obama? Because he knew he was going to win. And it didn't have anything to do with Sarah Palin. The result? From 1994 to 1984, just like that.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.10.09 @ 6:54AM

1. Flat Tax.
2. Acceptance, if not the realization, that the word “choice” also includes good choices. (What part of “freedom” don’t you understand? Quit trying to make “Freedom of Religion” a negative “Freedom from Religion” connotation.) The very same who most vehemently reject the imposition of expanded government upon themselves are those who most vigorously wish to impose their own doctrines on others.
3. Do not under any circumstances support any candidate that has at any time voted to raise taxes. (Even under the auspices of “trade off.”)
4. Train candidates do not “re-train” candidates. (This means new candidates on a national level.)
5. No losers allowed. This especially includes Huckabee, Romney, Thompson and any of the self-destructive clowns who refused to step aside and as a direct result to their squabbling, placed us in the position we now suffer under.
6. Focus. If most here would redirect the hate and derogatory hyperbole, to enumerate the positive aspects of freedom, minimal government, and constitutional direction we would not only win easily but would prosper.
7. Most importantly never (NEVER) equate a successful election to “mandate” or “spoils.”
What I fear most is what will occur when (not if) we return to majority in the next election cycle. The compromises that will be needed to secure success (holding our tongues or noses) will shatter and once again the bigotry, religious intolerance, and agenda driven cultural mores and folkways will shove aside the constitution.
8. Poor winners seeking retribution are not superior to poor losers expounding hate. Switching from one to the other is what is destroying the country not party politics.
9. Oh, and did I mention flat tax?

Patriot| 7.10.09 @ 1:32PM

Michael, show me examples of Conservative 'hate' you see on this thread. RINO moron.

Richard Baker| 7.10.09 @ 6:30PM

Patriot:
The liberal version of hate is anyone who dares to disagree. Their expressions of "thought" are so juvenile, if they rise to that, don't you agree?

dudette| 7.10.09 @ 7:55PM

This is a great article--I think a positive message out front is defintiely needed, but behind the scenes, fight these socialists tooth and nail and drag them into court. I dont know why congress hasnt done that w/Dodd, et. al. well i do know---but why not some activity a la ACLU? fight fire with fire but that shouldnt keep a positive message with some solutions being presented.

Patriot| 7.10.09 @ 8:36PM

Richard B., the funny thing is Hauschild isn't a liberal--that's what ticked me off so much.

Major Redneck| 7.10.09 @ 9:55PM

Haven't you noticed that the conservatives are turing out in numbers for Ron Paul? That's because Ron Paul is a real conservative.

The party conservatives don't want to drop the "social agenda" because there are large numbers of votes involved in playing to them. But real conservatism is the belief in individual freedom and lack of government interference.

There will be no conservative resurgence until these real conservative ideals resurface. Putting up a mentally-unbalanced, though war-hero candidate, and a bimbo governor was not a conservative move.

I'll come back when the party comes back to its ideals.

Robert Founder | 7.11.09 @ 12:43AM

I HAVE THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS:

What I have to say, I basically said on my two websites, not that I don't have others, but here are the two of them everyone needs to read:

WWW.ConservativeVictoryPlan.WordPress.Com and www.Precinct.Weebly.Com

On these two websites I have laid out a preliminary plan for Victory on one, and the means to achieve that Victory on the other.

I could supply hundreds of pages more of details for anyone who was interested in what a real plan for Victory might look like.

Mr. Q is to be commended for his reckless audacity in even raising the points he is making, and it is telling that he stands totally alone among all the 5000 other "Conservative Columnists, Organizations, and self-appointed "leaders" in this Country.

Not one single one of these inflated luminaries has a plan for Victory, (which even a child would know would be needed) and that includes the RNC, the NRA, CPAC, and the ACU, and all the thousands of others, all of whom we support with our hard earned money. All of them are posers. I have never seen such a bunch of ball-less sissies in my life as our Conservative starting line up. This excepting only a tiny few like Sarah, Ann, Rush and a very few others.

Now, I love all of them, for they are my people, which is just why I am so hard on them. They all need to be whipped into shape, and it start right here with me, or it will never be done.

BUT, even our few Saints don't dare to touch the real problems with the Republican Party, the nation and the world.

Bottom line is, if we don't have an extremely radical change in the way the GOP does business, like yesterday, you can be sure this country will not be here beyond this generation.

As it stands now, we are finished as a nation, if for no other reason than we have NO children, and I mean that.

The birthrate of the Best and Brightest in this country is half of replacement, which is 1.2 children average per woman. Any human population that reproduces at half of replacement becomes statistically extinct in less than 100 years. This is not opinion it is arithmetic.

Many of the Commenters here have each hit a tiny piece of the problem, but none of them including the author have a clue as to the whole picture. Sorry, but I do. If someone else does, let me know who and I will go work for him for nothing, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.

In short everyone of the "folks" say toughen up, but even they fail to see just how tough we have to get, and the total extent of the problem.

Beware: It may already be too late. We may have already passed the point of no return, the tipping point. But even if this is true, we must fight as though it is not. As for myself, I am an optimist, or I would not have designed a plan for Victory when not one single Conservative Organization in this Country, including the RNC, TWT, Heritage, TAS, and you name has done so.

If my plan were the worst plan on earth it would be a 1000 times better than anyone else's plan, for no one else has any plan at all. D Day required a plan, crossing the street requires a plan, so why does not Conservative Victory require a plan? Choke it down, face it, it does require a plan.

Priotity one, that trumps all other 1000 Conservative issues is, we need to get a massive jump in OUR birthrate, that is of Conservatives and Believers, to even begin to have a chance to save this Republic. And if you think the Mormons or Catholics are going to save us, think again, both of their birth rates are falling through the floor.

The best step in the right direction would be to get me writing for TWT, and TAS and everywhere else possible. Trust me, I am able to detail what we need to do and outline it in writing. Just let me do it, and I won't take a dime for my work.

In our Revolution, Sam Adams and Thomas Paine were very unpopular guys, something like me, BUT they were able to put into words what we needed to do to win our freedom. And no one else could. Yes GW was great but he could have done nothing without the gadflies who, and Margaret Thatcher said, "Won the argument." Once you win the argument, you get the grass roots riled up, and with that you win everything else. Maggie did it, RR did it, even Newt did it in 94, (though he seems to have lost his touch now), and it is simple, FIRST YOU GET A PLAN, THEN YOU HAVE A PLAN TO WORK THE PLAN. That's it!

Who is it today who can put into words what we need to do to KEEP our Freedom? I know of no one who can do this job and I monitor all of them, Beck, Rush, Michelle, Crystal, and on and on. I love them all, but they cannot articulate a plan, and cannot really tell it like it is. They are too beholden to Conservative PC. Conservative PC and two-bits will get us on the bus, if we are lucky. To win will take kicking the butts of our own people, starting with those at the top.

I know I can do this job of laying it out in detail, if I have the chance to do it.

My Email is RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

If you want the job done, I can, and will do it, and won't charge you a dime. I don't need money, I just need bandwidth, and print space.

Robert Founder | 7.11.09 @ 12:48AM